GISS shows temperatures rising sharply since July. We have been having a record cold La Niña since then, and everyone else shows temperatures plummeting.

GISS also showed a huge spike in March which nobody else saw. Does this have anything to do with Hansen’s constant claims of 2010 as the hottest year ever? He shows peak La Niña temperatures almost as warm as peak El Niño temperatures. That is simply ridiculous.

51 Responses to GISS Temperatures Out Of Line With The Rest Of The World

“GISS shows temperatures rising sharply since July. We have been having a record cold La Niña since then, and everyone else shows temperatures plummeting.”
============================================================
That’s because the rest don’t have his spiffy imaginary thermometers and algorerhythm.

I would imagine that when you project your “warm” southern values out over cooler northern regions, that you would get hotter than actual readings.
They have the entire polar regions hotter than they are, to compensate for the cold, cold reality.

Thanks, Steven for posting this comparison. Since I saw GISS’ number for november on Lucia’s site, I’ve been waiting for someone with the ‘know-how’ to connect the dots – that’s why I frequent your site.

Well I don’t think NASA/GISS takes their own data seriously, remember this gem from the GISS e-mails obtained by FOIA last March:

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

Dr. Hansen, like many other aging hippies, is upset that the revolution never took hold and changed the political/economic realities.

So, bottom line, if we refuse to change the political and economic realities, the least he can do for us (to us?) is to ignore the climate realities.

What a sad little band of liars we have, posing as scientists. Scientists are the very people we should be able to trust as the authoritative last word on such matters. I must admit, though, that Reto Ruedy is a snazzy name, and I would gladly trade it for my own, were such a thing possible.

Steve’s plot is misleading. He hasn’t used a standardised baseline period. GISS anomalies are relative to the 1951-1980 period while UAH and RSS are relative to the 1979-1998 period. UAH has been consistently ‘warmer’ than GISS throughout 2010.

John – I have not seen the actual raw data from the orgs but I do believe that UAH and RSS data are low altitude atmospheric whereas GISS is land-based and HadCrut is land/sea-based. The fact that UAH is warmer than GISS in absolute terms means nothing. They are measuring different entities. Steve’s comment that the 2010 slope is damning of the GISS data is very poignant.

I remember when Hansen was spouting out about 2010 on schedule to be the warmest year on the record. Some of us on WUWT joked about whether this was a promise. ;O) It looks like it was no joke afterall, he really meant it. :O(

GISS only uses the best and latest Al-Gore-Rhythm applied to the most reliable anally produced extrapolations. The other reporting groups can not come close to the end product from GISS when the SMELL Test is applied!!! ;)

Well, you know the equation for a straight line! That’s a good start. However, if you claim that the GISS temps run higher than the others, you better get the offset right. Otherwise, it is a case of purposeful disinformation.

“So the question I have is whether we should believe Goddard or Tamino??”

Lol, Tamino? Seriously? Notice Steve’s link he just provided to back his claim. Its plain, simple and a real independent site.

In your link provided, Tamino, or Grant, or whoever he wishes to be, went through some very skillful mechanisms to provide you wrong information. Where is he wrong? From his very first premise.

“There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). “

He almost got it right. All 3 share the same data. Most coming from NOAA the parent of NCDC. (For the record, I do agree with Tamino, in that sat. data and thermometer data is an apples to oranges comparison and shouldn’t be done.) But when it comes to thermometer readings that use the same readings to a 90% ratio, it is really only interpretive analysis that’s the difference. Tamino goes to great lengths in trying to show you that they’re not different.

Yes, GISS and HadCru look very similar. But, you have to look closer. The divergence is more clearly seen after 2001. (for now) You don’t need principle components to see the obvious recent divergence.

Notice the almost parallel linear trends.
Also note, that in a few day, none of this will count, in that the data is expected to be altered. You should click on the raw data link at the bottom and copy and paste it to a text file to track the changes.

To answer your original question, is because Steve is more believable. Huge flags and bs warnings should sound when someone has to resort to statistical gimmickry to make a simple comparison of places that use 90% of the same data.